5. CHAPTER THE DRUNKARD / THE PARKING LOT On a bleak December morning, as I came down at about nine o'clock for breakfast, the waitress said to me: "Boss, there is a completely drunk."
guy
there,
he's
sleeping
and
I went to the man, shook him gently and said: "Good morning, the waitress would like you to pay." The man didn't move. I asked quietly: "What's your name and where do you come from? I've never seen you here." The man didn't react. I said: "Look, if you don't pay and don't tell me your name and where you come from, I'll have to call the police and charge you with filching or petty theft." The man didn't move. He was beyond good and evil. I called the cantonal police, had a cup of coffee and a croissant - my breakfast - and went downstairs. There was work to do in the kitchen. In the course of the day Klara told me that police had come and taken the man away. Toward evening I went to the police station in order to know more about him. I was received by police officer Berger. He told me that the man had escaped from an
institution for alcoholics. It seems that he did so every so now and then for he was a heavy drinker and could not control his vice. Then he went on in an earnest tone of voice: "And against you, Mr. Simonin, there is a complaint about serving alcohol to an alcoholic." "But look," I protested, "how could I have known that the guy was a boozer? We have done all we could, and certainly we didn't serve him anymore after we saw that he had gotten too much." "Sure", answered the brave defender of public moral and order, "but the point is that you, or your personnel, for whose activities you are responsible, have to prevent this sort of situation. At best you hire a supervisor in order to control the personnel's activities. We have to prevent this sort of situation." "Yeah, but we can't afford a supervisor," I said. "Well then, just kick the man out, so you'll escape punishment." I was speechless. I left the police station and went home. A few days later I found an official envelope in the mail. I opened it and read: District Attorney of Canton of Solothurn Prison Lane 1 4502 SOLOTHURN SUBPOENA No. 10946*88 against Simonin
Jean
Claude,
son
of
Justin
and
Hélène Frieda born Fatio, born on Jan. 13.,1934 in Sainte Croix, VD, married to Klara, born Gerber, Innkeeper, living in 2540 Granges, There is a report that you have been found to serve alcohol to a drunken person, ascertained on Dec. 14., 1988 in Granges, Restaurant Bahnhof, in the restaurant. In application of
§ 60/1a, 114 Catering Law
following decision: You will days:
pay
to
the
Court's
1. A fine of 2. Court's expenses 3. Police expenses 4. Total
treasury
Fr. Fr. Fr.
30,15,--
Fr.
45,-
within
30
Solothurn, Jan. 19., 1989 Legal Information: If you don't agree with this decision, you are permitted to raise objection within 10 days upon reception of the present subpoena, in writing or by appearing personally before the District attorney. Objection will start legal proceedings. Demand for relief or payment by installments are to be addressed to District Court. Signed: Illegible "So, that's the way the cookie crumbles in this Canton of Solothurn," I thought. Fr. 45,is certainly not a large sum. But it was a question of fairness and common horse sense. I pondered for a short while, got a piece of paper over the
typewriter and wrote: 1989
Granges, January 20.,
To District Attorney of Canton Solothurn Prison Lane 1 4502 SOLOTHURN OBJECTION To Subpoena No. 10946*88 Against Simonin,Jean Claude,sonofjustinandfriedabornfationetc... FORMAL REQUEST In application of Art. 4 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, which guarantees the full equality of all persons before the Law, I take the liberty to present following request: With the purpose of limiting boozing and the ensuing moral decay of the population the following measures are to be taken at once and applied nationwide: A police official is to be posted at every bar, lounge or restaurant entrance, armed with an alcohol meter. This police official shall control every entering patron on his or her alcohol level. This police official is also in charge of controlling the consumption of alcohol of any guest who tends to show gaiety - or even starts singing. The same measure applies to any guest who get involved in a political discussion. The political
situation in this country, especially at Federal level, could actually incite people to drink. Another police official is to be posted in every public place in order to continuously control the guests' financial situation and to report to the joint owner, should any doubt arise in this respect. Every joint owner nationwide should from now on serve every glass of booze personally and control afterward per alcohol meter the alcohol level of the guest. In formal Respect It is an undisputed fact that the consumption of alcohol in this country has reached a questionable level: We only have to think of this ZĂźrich Traffic Court judge who got caught twice drunk at the wheel and still kept his driver's license - no doubt a beer happy idea of the ZĂźrich Cantonal Supreme Court. Or of this judge in the Canton Jura who killed an innocent person and severely wounded another while driving as he was drunk. In material Respect or, to put it differently: "Down to brass tacks, my love" This Mister H. landed per chance in our establishment. He had, if I am well informed, escaped from an institution for alcoholics. If I were pedantic I would speak of a stroke of fate. Fact is that my wife and I have a consequent policy on that matter: Anyone who only once gets drunk and disagreeable is reported to the police and is prohibited to enter the place again. The result is that no local boozer dares to show up any more. Our waitress, Mrs. Schwaller, is not to be blamed
either: She informed me as soon as she noticed any trouble. She didn't incite the man to drink. Even this Mister H. cannot be charged with any offense: This man is a compulsive drinker and ill and under the circumstances not liable for his deeds. The sum he owes us - Fr. 21,50 - doesn't give any indication about his drinking at our place: It may well be that his neighbors bought him a drink or two, or that he bought them a drink. Possible also that he was loaded to the gills before he entered our place. Police corporal B., who, if I am correctly informed, led the commando action told me that this subpoena should have a preventive effect, so as to induce the joint owner to stop serving booze before the guests get drunk. And you know, I find this idea rather thrilling, for it opens our jurist an unlimited field of activity: As of now a fire fighting brigade can be charged with neglect as it didn't stand in front of the building before the fire broke out. A police officer shall have to answer to the question as to why he wasn't standing on the site of an accident before the accident occurred. (This request isn't that farfetched: Everyone knows for instance that alcohol, youth, lack of sleep, sex and fast cars make for a deadly combination which is the cause of untold human misery and tremendous material damage. In all the years that I have spent in the catering business, in the Jura, in the Bernese Oberland, in Neuchâtel, in the Basel area I have never experienced a traffic control after a public dance party.) In
the
future
also
a
judge
should
have
the
possibility to jail a criminal before he commits a crime. (This proposal also is not as silly as it seems: had there been only one brave judge to control the activities of a certain Mr. K. before his wife Mrs. K. got elected Justice and Police Minister at Federal level...)(1) Police corporal B. advised me to avoid punishment in the future by simply kicking the guy out. And also this seems to be a decent alternative: We can actually expect of a person like H. that he succumbs to exposure or to pneumonia in the winter or - as could well be the case in connection with our establishment - that he gets killed while trying to cross the railway tracks. In such a case the police will be called for good reasons, our guardian angels can enjoy the sight of cold meat, something like Miami Vice, that's what makes life so exciting. It is now Carnival time, the time for fools, and I assume that you have been won over to the surrounding gaiety as you wrote that subpoena. And I also answer in kind, for I cannot imagine that anyone could find anything contemptible to that situation. You might, in a sober moment, contend that laws and regulation are made to be observed. And I shall then soberly line up a whole array of articles from the Penal Code, the Civil Code, the Code of Obligations, the Federal Constitution or the Catering Law, whose function is a purely decorative one, at best. I find that the whole affair is splendidly suited for a few deft Carnival rhymes, and so I am sending
your subpoena along with this letter to the "Blick" daily, with the request that they may find some swinging Carnival clique with a swinging humor. Do not forget, however, the principle of this objection remains, and that Court proceedings are now hanging. Anything else shall be interpreted as a denial of justice, with an appropriate criminal charge against you. The short jokes are always the best. (And yet I find this subpoena a delightfully tipsy undertaking.) With Carnivalesque greetings,
consideration
and
friendly
Yours very truly, J.C. Simonin Time passed. We went on renovating the house. In the kitchen we changed the stove. The energy bill had sunk by 35% over a 12 month period, by a turnover increase of 60%. At the end of April 1989 came the Court sentence. It was admitted: 1. of 2. 3.
The defendant J.C. Simonin is found not guilty having served alcohol to a drunken person. The legal expenses are to be borne by the State. No possibility of appellation.
The justice officials had been nice to me. Even before this sentence had been made public, they had told me in writing that my innocence had been admitted. They asked me to formulate my claim of compensation of expenses towards the Canton. I had
answered modestly that the setting down of this objection had been a real piece of fun for myself and for our guests and that I didn't mean to strain the cantonal finances. The former owner had in connection with the opening of the lounge in 1971 rented a parking lot of ten places in the vicinity of the house. As it has been mentioned already, we were compelled to systematically reassess every aspect of our daily activities if we wanted to draw some profit of the operation. These parking places were located about fifteen meters from the main entrance, in front of a large apartment building. We noticed quite soon that they were being occupied by all sorts of vehicles, excepted by our patrons'. The former owner had given notice to the Commune by the end of July 1987 already. These parking places were mentioned in our sales contract, but not as a constituting part of it. In our catering license they were not mentioned at all, they were not a condition for granting it. A memorandum from the municipal traffic Direction, dated 25.11.1985, had turned out by chance as we moved in. It had been made plain that the problem of unlawful parking had been admitted by the local Authorities. In the course of some discussions with the guests we had been informed that the former tenant had tried to enforce some respect for his right on these parking places. All he had gained was the reputation of a quarrelsome person, he had come to no other result. The people who went to the nearby supermarket, to the hairdresser's, to the railway station simply ignored the "no parking" sign. And we as newcomers could not afford any negative publicity. The number of patrons was on the rise, as regular customers told us. Therefore these parking places
were no great factor of development. The former owner had paid the rent for the last quarter of 1987. We paid the rent for the first quarter 1988, and for the second quarter. But we had no lease contract with the Commune, and this expense appeared the longer the more superfluous. Eventually I took a decision and wrote to the head of the cantonal Office for Trade and Commerce: Reserved Granges
parking
places,
Restaurant
Bahnhof,
Dear sir, As of October 1., 1987 we are, my wife and I, owners of the Restaurant Bahnhof Corp. in Granges. According to sales contract we find that on the land register ten parking places are reserved for Restaurant Bahnhof under registration No. 3161. Owner is the Commune of Granges. The annual rent is Fr. 2.400,If I am well informed, these parking places have been rented by the former owner in connection with the opening of the lounge in 1971. It seems indeed that the license for the lounge has been delivered in connection with the rental of these parking places. After nine months in Granges, I am forced to admit that these parking places are being used by car drivers who do not frequent our localities at all. It seems to me that this problem has existed for a number of years, if I may take into account this memo from the municipal authorities. In addition to this I know of quite a few public places in Granges which operate without a parking lot, and whose patrons have to park on the street. The obligation to keep these parking places creates
from my point of view an inequality of treatment, all the more as in the center of town the conditions for parking are far more problematic. For this reason I request you to kindly relieve us from this obligation. Yours very sincerely, J.C. Simonin The answer from the Trade arrived five days later:
and
Commerce
Office
Dear Mr. Simonin, With a letter dated July 15., 1988 your request to be relieved from the obligation of renting 10 parking places for your establishment. By Cantonal Government's decision of June 30., 1972, (Nr. 3701)the authorization for the opening of a lounge in the basement of Hotel and Restaurant Bahnhof in Granges has been granted. Under the considerations came the fact that the actual owner had rented ten parking places out of the parking lot located North of the neighboring apartment building, which were to be accordingly designated and held free for the Hotel's visitors. In the dispositive, that is, the final decision of the State Council, to mention is being made of these parking places. In particular, no conditions have been made with regards to the establishment. Also these parking places are not mentioned on the restaurant's license. In legal respect this means that the parking places' problem is not subjected to any particular consideration. In other words, you are subjected to
no legal conditions with regards to these parking places, and this is why we cannot relieve you from such conditions. It is a basic legal tenet, that only the Authority which has enacted a legal regulation is allowed to waive it. Conditions pertaining to parking places for public places are as a rule decided within the regulations concerning building permits. We suggest that you undertake further enquiry there. We hope that we could information and remain,
help
you
with
this
With friendly greetings,
Trade and
Cantonal Office for Commerce Rudolf Tschachtli
Time passed. We didn't pay the rent for these parking places any more. Why should we have? The places were free to be used by anyone who wanted. If anyone wanted to argue that they had been rented in connection with the lounge's opening in 1971, we could answer that we had closed down the hotel operation. This was notified on our license. And besides, we definitely had other financial problems. In the course of 1988 the first raise of the mortgage interest had taken place. The place was a bottomless hole. Literally everything we took in the hands was broken down. At the end of 1987
already I had installed a suitable office with desk and telephone. We needed a photocopier, and chinaware, and linen, and so on, and so forth. Our bank account was reaching abysmal depths. And above all, the municipal administration had not reacted to the non-payment of the rent.We could trust that the affair would arrange itself. But it came differently. On Dec. 12., 1988 we received an excerpt from a meeting's protocol of the town's Building' department in which stood that in accordance with this assembly's decision, and also in accordance with a letter from the cantonal Caterers' Association these parking places were definitely necessary. Consequently these places were either to be constructed to be rented/Certified long time lease to be compensated at the rate of Fr. 7.100,- per place. The new owner had to fulfill this obligation within useful time. What does the clever house father, what does the swift house mother do under the circumstances? They seek a solution which can be of advantage to all parties concerned. And so, in the course of an idle afternoon, I set down following letter, addressed to the City Council. Hallgarten decision
Parking
lot,
Building's
Commission'
Ladies and Gentlemen, Enclosed herewith you will find the photocopy of the Building's commission's decision concerning the
parking places mentioned above. The undersigned is now confronted with three solutions to the problem: He can have the places constructed (?) He can rent them He can offer compensation at the rate 7.100,- per parking place.
of
Fr.
The sense and purpose of these parking places was to offer some parking opportunities to the patrons of our establishment. I'm sorry to admit that under the existing condition this purpose has been in no way fulfilled: It is rather so, that these parking places are being used by people who have absolutely nothing to do with our establishment, and park their cars there for hours and even for days at a time A continuation of the existing order is out of the question, for we are not willing to continue financing parking places for strangers. A suitable and continuous supervision by the local police is not possible for practical reasons - lack of personnel - or by us, as this would lead to endless quarrels. To solution to this problem would be, in my opinion, to install parking meters with a maximum capacity of three hours. Within three hours we can enjoy a wonderful meal or attend a long meeting. The people using these parking facilities would have to pay a modest fee and are hardly affected, The Commune receives more money and "last but not least" we are rid of an obligation. I hope that this last solution will retain your kind interest and remain, With perfect consideration and friendly greetings,
J.C. Simonin Shortly before Christmas I received from the City Council following notice. In the legal complaint between J.C. Simonin-Gerber, Restaurant Bahnhof, 2540 GRANGES and Building Commission, Commune of Granges has been decided 1. One copy of 15. December 1988 goes for consultation and submission of all demands of construction and plans to the Communal Land Office. A delay shall be fixed later on. 2.The plaintiff is requested to precise his formal demand until January 12., 1989. Commune of Granges The legal counsel Boris Banga, Advocate To be sent to: Plaintiff Municipal Building Commission A complaint from me? What complaint? I had just presented my point of view and suggested a solution agreeable to all. And so we were rid of the subject.
And exactly in this spirit I set down a short letter to the City Council. At the beginning of January I received from the Commune's legal counsel a note informing me that I was to be requested to appear as plaintiff in an arbitration proceeding under the leadership of Building's Office Head. "Okay" so I thought, "another donut story." In February 1989 the kitchen stove was replaced. And so was the main overhaul of the house completed. The new stove is a gas-electricity combination, two hot plates each, with a plate warmer and a steam table, without oven. Instead we have one small hot air oven, a large hot air oven, and a steamer as well. Our place was until February 1994 open seven days a week, 17 hours a day. But we are very well organized, everything has always been going round and the team spirit is optimal. We have little time off, but what little time we have we enjoy all the more. Klara is the good soul of the house. She runs the restaurant and the dining room with a quiet authority and an extraordinary instinctive feel. In the morning she is always the first out of bed, sees to it that Sylvia and Suzi get a proper breakfast, makes wonderful flower arrangements, looks after the guests, all day long. Sylvia is now fifteen, attends junior college. She has a lot from her mother, is attentive in school, She has a great love in her life, and her love's name is Jimmy. Jimmy is no pop music star, he is no daring movie actor with steely fists and a tender core, he is no
long legged dancer and no uncle from America. No, Jimmy is a horse, or rather, a pony, a WelshArabian with fine pasterns, a salt-and pepper fleece, finely pointed ears and jolly eyes in a lively face. Jimmy and Sylvia are a couple indeed, a handsome and elegant couple as they trot and gallop in the fields and along the riverside. Suzi is eighteen now. She attends the Higher Business School in Neuchâtel, so she can polish up her French. She is a latecomer of sorts, but all have the feeling that she could really become an evergreen. She's got a fine ear for music, and could play the piano very well, if she only wanted to. She draws very well and has a talent for languages. She possibly is also interested in literature, for she brought me some day a text for a close examination: "The First Time He pushed my head back. I thought, he won't do it. It was the first time! I held my breath and waited. "I shall be careful," he said. Then he asked me if I could open more, he could be better. It started to bleed and to hurt. But I behaved like a woman. Then I started groaning. He said that he was finished already. It was the first time that I had a back tooth pulled out." Young girls are like bananas: They are sweetest when they are a little bit spoiled. And then there is me, 60 years old and none the wiser. As a young man I have traveled a great deal, this is a part of the trade. I have done some sport, but have never been a champ. I am always to be had for a nice game of chess, or for a glass of good wine. My great passion has been and still remains books. With books I have experienced many
fantastic things. Along with Countess Sophie de SĂŠgur I have grown up as the scion of a wealthy French 19. century family. With Rodophe TĂśppfer and his collegians I have wandered from Geneva to Venice across the Alps. With Pierre Loti I have visited the souks of Constantinople, with Herbert George Well (An Outline of History) I have undertaken a fabulous journey across the continents and the centuries. With Jules Verne I have flown to the moon and with Emile Zola (Les Rougon-Macquart) and Somerset Maugham (Of Human Bondage) I have sunk into the morass of human misery. But the book that put its stamp on my youth is "Martin Eden", Jack London's autobiographic novel. In Martin Eden I have recognized many of my own character streaks. So, and presently I am sitting in front of a blank page and trying to write a book myself. But thoughts fly and the typewriter goes on foot and that's what makes things complicated. In February I got a notice from the municipal chancery that the planned meeting was being postponed. We could not have cared less. For us there was nothing to discuss. Later on I got an invitation to appear on Friday, June 2.,1989 at 14:00. I went. In the meeting room there sat four gentlemen as I came in. I knew only one of them, the deputy chief of the local police. A short man with a sharp featured face ordered me to buy or to rent the parking places. I refused. The gentlemen exchanged a few words among themselves and the meeting was closed. No one had asked for the reasons for my refusal.
That thing bugged me all the same. It was really hairy stuff, I found it useful to send to the Mayor a two page letter explaining my point of view. The letter closed with a citation out of the Catering law. Art. 42 of said law reads as follows. "The granting of a catering license can be made to depend on the installation of parking facilities insofar as these facilities are not disproportionately expensive and obviously necessary." "Well, these parking places are obviously not necessary for our business, The costs are disproportionate for the Commune,(continuous police supervision around the clock), as well as for our business (wasted money) and there an attractive alternative (parking meters) I still hope that this sorry affair can be settled in good faith and remain, dear sir, etc... The Mayor replied with unusual haste that the whole affair had been entrusted "to the competent cantonal instances" in order to obtain a credible decision. On September 21. I received from the legal counsel of the Commune the copy of a letter to the cantonal Land Office in which appeared that the whole affair had been entrusted to the cantonal instances. On September 30. I received from the cantonal Land Office following memo: To .1. Plaintiff: J.C. Simonin, Granges
Granges
2. City Council, Building Commission,
in the complaint against the decision of Building Commission concerning parking places Restaurant Bahnhof the cantonal Land Office has taken today following Decision the plaintif has in accordance with 38.2 of Administrative Law to pay before 13. October 1989 an advance on expenses to the amount of Fr. 400,to the cantonal treasury. Should this payment not be effected within delay, so is the right to further proceedings forfeited. For the cantonal land office
(Mrs.) C. FĂźeg-Hitz In addition copy of a letter to the Building Commission of the Commune of Granges requesting information in this affair. This affair was slowly but surely getting out of bound. I had to admit that the time for diplomacy was over. Klara felt dejected. I sat at the typewriter again, and set down the following letter, addressed to the cantonal land office: Your 28. September 1989 memo.
Dear Mrs. FĂźeg-Hitz, I have duly received your September 28. memo and realize to my boundless surprise that two letters of mine - of June 6. and July 15. - which were informally written have been promoted to the rank of complaints. In point of fact I don't have the slightest reason for complaining. The Commune of Granges may have reasons to complain against me. I only want to be left in peace. It is actually true that the Commune of Granges tries over and over again to impose those parking places upon me. In the two letters mentioned above I have explained at length the reasons for my refusal. As a last means of proof of these parking places' uselessness I take the liberty to submit to you the turnover we realized in September 1988, as the parking places in front of the house were freely accessible, and the turnover realized in September 1989, as the parking places were blocked on account of canalization repairs: Total turnover September 1988: 63.788,90 Total turnover September 1989 63.789,55
Fr. Fr.
Those figures can be controlled in cooperation with the IRS. On January 7. 1988 already I asked Mr. Rothen, Granges' Mayor to grant me an interview in order to settle this problem through peaceful means. I was at the time under the illusion that it would be possible to discuss a problem quietly, and to find a solution agreeable to all parties concerned. So
was it once upon a time, as it was possible to feel respect for this State and its public officials and civil servants. So now it becomes evident that a trifling affair such as this has been dragging itself for the past eighteen months, and that it takes a whole battery of jurists to block the way to a simple solution. The present letter's main points, which have been mentioned in the two previous letters already, are as follows: 1. I don't give a hoot about these parking places. 2. I have no reason whatsoever to file a complaint, as long as I haven't received an order of payment. 3. I shall drag an eventual order of payment through all legal instances in this country and even beyond. 4. I as an apparently free citizen in a supposedly free country have sought the contact with the Authorities and haven't found it, for this country's Authorities have long since lost the contact with the ordinary people, and therefore with reality. 5. I shall close down our lounge after I have dragged this affair through every instance. For we all know that in the Honorable Society of jurists and public officials no wolf ever attacks its neighbor. Through this decision of mine the canton and the Commune shall lose taxes, the mortgage payments become difficult and the - enormous -overhaul expenses are cancelled. 6. And in this way I have proclaimed to the world
that I'll never spend a single centime for these goddam parking places. Yours truly, J.C. Simonin In addition to this the letter was provided with a long post script in which I remarked on the sleazy observance of laws and regulations Through a notification dated November 16., 1989 the plaintiff J.C. Simonin was advised that his complaint had been filed and that the delay for the payment of advance on expenses had been extended until November 30. After this delay the complaint would become void. I sat at the typewriter once more. This time the paper was addressed to the whole cantonal Government: Parking places: Enclosed herewith you will find a so-called "decision" from the cantonal Land Office in which I am being addressed as "plaintiff". You'll also find enclosed the photocopy of a few letters in which I take position with regard to this appellation. Presently I get another memo in which I am once more being addressed as "plaintiff". And this is the cause for all kinds of speculations: 1. The good woman who should be handling the case is illiterate and could not read my letters. 2. The same good woman was not illiterate, but didn't get the mail and is consequently handling in the void.
3. The woman is not illiterate, she did get the mail, but she corresponds only with God. These are of course serious moments of suspicion, which require a thorough investigation through the cantonal Government as a whole. Be it as it may, I Government politely to this person, as which she is apt to
would like to ask the cantonal to explain the following points far as possible in a language understand:
1. I have no quarrel with the Commune of Granges and do not want any. Consequently I cannot be called a plaintiff since I have no complaint. 2. It is however a proven fact that the Commune of Granges is seeking a quarrel with me. The ground has been found with these parking places. It is therefore up to the Commune to pursue this quarrel by all legal, paralegal or illegal means. I shall defend myself by all legal or other means. 3. The reasons for this attitude of mine are described in my letters dated June 6, July 15 and October 4. I have nothing to add to these letters. Or maybe I do: This quarrel is about something very basic, for which our ancestors have fought and shed plenty of blood and tears, about something that is being celebrated the world over and that cannot be defended by our army any more, and this is the right of every person to dispose of his or her life and his or her occupation as he - or she - sees fit. Through this refusal of mine to rent or buy these
parking places I haven't threatened the morals, nor the health, nor the safety of my fellow citizens. This decision touches only myself, my wife and my children, and they are content with this decision. This is our lives, and I shall be ready to defend them, through brutal means if it has to be. I have finished attention.
now,
and
I
thank
you
for
your
J.C. Simonin Things then developed swiftly. From the cantonal chancery I received following memo, dated November 22: We acknowledge the reception of your November 20. letter to the cantonal Government about
Parking places
and inform you that it has been forwarded to Land Office. Further question or remarks are to be addressed to this office. With friendly greetings sig: illegible A pre-printed form. On December 15., 1989 received a last decision from the Land Office:
I
As a plaintiff I had not paid the advance costs for the treatment of my complaint. Said complaint was not to be examined. Ten days for appellation before the canton's Administrative Court.
What does the clever house father do when he receives that sort of crap? First of all, he takes a deep breath, closes his eyes and gives an anxious thought to his blood pressure and his cholesterol. And then he sits once typewriter and writes:
more
in
front
of
his
Granges, Dec. 19., 1989 concerned with the
To all parties Hallgarten park places
Statement addressed to cantonal Land Office concerning affair mentioned above On December 15., 1988 I have in no way filed a complaint before the Commune of Granges. This letter of mine can at best be understood as a statement, as an attempt to get in touch with the local Authorities. A complaint it is not: It lacks a formal demand and the formal description of the case. I had stopped paying the rent for these parking places. The former owner had cancelled the lease contract on the end of July 1987 and I was perfectly satisfied with this decision. Logically I could not complain about a situation which satisfied me. And logically the land office could not turn down a complaint which has never been filed. I have attempted through various letters to the Authorities to expose my point of view and to seek a solution to the problem, insofar as the problem is of any concern to us, which I absolutely doubt. My letters haven't even been read, and this is demonstrated through the latest Land Office's memo.
In this case it will be up to the Commune's paragraph riders and pedants to take legal action against me, if they really haven't got a better pastime. It won't change anything to my definite refusal to take over these parking places: Just more hatred, more contempt is going to be produced, but this is of no importance. Our public officials have such a thick skin that they don't need any backbone. A complaint before Administrative court is also useless, simply because the Land Office's decision is void of legal value: this decision demonstrates once and for all that a citizen's petition is not even considered: an ordinary citizen can say, think, feel, write and do whatever he wants, the Authorities don't give a shit about it. Our Government and our administration at every level are just a big morass, and in this morass there thrive harassment and corruption, arrogance and pork barrel. Only through the threat of violence and scandal can we hope to obtain justice. All the same, I want to say once more what I want: I want the Authorities to leave me alone. I want them to stop harassing me, sometime on account of a labor permit, sometime on account of a drunkard, and I want them to respect my right before the Law, I want to be treated like a responsible citizen by that bunch of fuckers and not be considered as an imbecile and a slave. And now what I do not want: I shall never pay even one centime for these goddam parking places. I'd rather set fire to my own joint
and start a real bloodshed. The Authorities are warned and take the full responsibility if I don't support these continuous frictions and if I fly off the handle. J.C. Simonin Copy of this letter to: Building's Commission Granges Town Council, Granges Local police, Granges Cantonal police, Granges Redaction Grenchner Tagblatt (local daily) Redaction Blick (largest German Swiss daily) Redaction Schweizer Illustrierte (largest weekly)
Swiss
Gee, was that a beef! On Thursday, December 21. an article had been published over five columns. And then a further article was published a few days later over three columns and with Mr. Otto Singer's picture, the communal Building's Commission's head. With a big, fat title: I FEEL THREATENED And in this article the poor man went on declaring: "I shall tell the Mayor that I do not want to pursue this affair until these threats have been withdrawn, or until I am provided with the Mayor's backing." It was the talk of the town. Some people found it revolting, others just died laughing. The Head of the Building's Commission in the Carnival revue, Carnival rhymes about the whole affair. Many people
would ask Klara: "Do you think he would shoot?" and Klara would reply: "Well, you know, he is a nice guy actually, but he gets pushed too far..." And the people's worry was of course legitimate: I've got a wonderful wife, two splendid children, a business in full development, and I definitely would not like to give up all this. But what is said clever house father supposed to do if a two bit hero from the Administration comes and tries his luck? If he doesn't fulfill the threat he passes for a bluffer and he's sure to be taken down to his slip. To kill a man awful thing to do. I have pondered a long time and come to the conclusion that a man who makes such a threat is forced to give to the villain something to think about, at the risk of committing an irreparable deed. With this fit of anger the affair came to a close. The Authorities have given up and I got my peace so far as this affair is concerned. There was an aftermath all the same: At the end of February, just after Carnival, Klara received a letter from the local Lion's Club: Lunch at the Restaurant Bahnhof Dear Mrs. Simonin, The committee of LC Granges has decided to renounce to lunch at the Hotel-Restaurant Bahnhof for the time being. The reason for this decision is to be found in the "parking place problem" in which one of our members is directly involved.
We regret this decision and hope that an agreement can be reached in this affair soon. With friendly greetings, LION'S CLUB GRANGES R. Mathys Jun., Sec. And in this way the intellectual, financial, economic, undertaking, scientific, artistic, political, moral, military and sporting elite of the town turned its face away from our establishment. We were neither surprised nor sorry. For isn't it so: With that sort of friends on reserve - who ever needs enemies?